I don't think there are many people, if any people, who would say, "You know what I hated about 4e? The idea of letting martial characters be as good as non-martial characters."
"Magic just doesn't feel magical" and "fighters cast spells" and "dissociative mechanics" were /common/ complaints. Resolving them invariable meant restoring the status quo 'primacy' of magic. 5e has done that, it's recognized as really D&D.
I don't see a problem, as far as fitting the available information goes.
- it's a dangerous thing to tell people that the reason that they like (or dislike) something is incorrect, and that you know better than they do why they really like or dislike something.
And I'm not doing that. I'm pointing out factual correlations between a particular editions qualities as a system, and it's general perception as not D&D (by both people who hate it, and some who quite liked it).
You don't have to dislike something to sort it into a different box from some other things you do like. You just have to see the differences.
If I say I don't like butter pecan ice cream because I don't like pecans, and you keep saying, "No, it's just because you don't like primacy of cream in it," it's probably not going to be a fun conversation.
Yeah, what if they also insist they love pecan pie? And turtles (that's a caramel & pecan candy). And, well, pecans.
Because, well, that's what trying to untangle complaints about dissociative mechanics was like.
2. I am unclear on your purpose; given that this thread is (was) about celebrating the commonality in D&D
That said commonality doesn't hold, because the edition war /did/ happen. And, 5e's inclusive, 'big tent' goal has not been met.
I'm afraid an insight to be gleaned from this thread is that it /can't/ be, because the D&D label has been put on something that wasn't D&D, and that can't ever be allowed back in the tent.
